rlrlrl
Joined:
24 Dec 2007
Posts: 260
|
 Posted: 04/29/2009 at 7:14 PM Post subject: TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
I just had the chance to play a great TB2000 that I hope to make mine in the near future. It's a late serial number, in the early 900s, and I hadn't realized how different this configuration was. It has a very thin body that feels quite contoured along the edges of the upper horns. It's much lighter than any other 2000 I've picked up. It's positively comfortable. Can anyone fill me in on the various specifications of different eras of these basses?
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Disclosure: Any links to eBay or Amazon.com are affiliate links. Affiliate links may provide commission payments to the site based on purchases.
|
|
|
|
wiggle
Joined:
01 Jun 2001
Posts: 20
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
rlrlrl
Joined:
24 Dec 2007
Posts: 260
|
| Posted: 05/01/2009 at 9:25 AM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
thanks, I forgot about that. I probably read it two years ago, but hadn't paid attention to the details about basses. This one seemed to be much better balanced than the earlier basses. Does anyone have opinions about sound and feel differences between eras? I know this has been discussed much about guitars, but not about basses so much.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
wiggle
Joined:
01 Jun 2001
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: 05/01/2009 at 10:16 AM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
sound
more mass = more low end
(i.e. the thicker bodied basses have a deeper tone.)
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
rlrlrl
Joined:
24 Dec 2007
Posts: 260
|
| Posted: 05/01/2009 at 10:22 AM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
Have you compared an early and late TB2000 side by side?
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
charlie
Joined:
06 Jan 2008
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: 05/01/2009 at 12:28 PM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
I have one of each and have compared them side by side. I think they are both great basses and find the differences to be pretty subtle. Someone on an earlier thread remarked that the early ones were superior, but this has not been my experience. I think if there was a significant difference it might be due to a weak pickup. I have recently had a blast rocking out with my late model TB2000 and got lots of low end and a killer tone that really cuts through the mix. Also, they are getting downright reasonable in price lately.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Disclosure: Any links to eBay or Amazon.com are affiliate links. Affiliate links may provide commission payments to the site based on purchases.
|
|
|
|
wiggle
Joined:
01 Jun 2001
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: 05/01/2009 at 1:08 PM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
Yes, I have compared them side to side. I have also compared TB2000 #0, the heaviest Bean I know of, weighing in at 14 pounds (this bass has the most low end I've heard on any bass guitar with passive pickups.)
charlie
"Subtle" is a relative term. I find quite a difference in the sound of the thick and thin models. Remember, you need to set up the action to be similar in both basses, as the distance between the strings and pickups make a world of difference.
Try recording the sound of the guitars on a computer and switching back and forth quickly between the two recordings. You also will see that the thick basses visually have a fuller waveform.
That being said, a Bean is a Bean. Travis would have never released the thinner bodied instruments if they were not superior instruments in the market. Making the body thinner may have compromised the sound a bit, but it made the instrument much more portable and comfortable to play.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
charlie
Joined:
06 Jan 2008
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: 05/02/2009 at 9:42 AM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
wiggle, do you know if that #0 bass had a solid neck? I seem to remember that some of the early Bean guitars had solid aluminum necks. That would certainly explain some of the extra weight and sustain. I have been curious to try a solid neck alum guitar. I think some of the guys making aluminum guitars now make their necks this way.
I am not very digitally inclined and never record anything. I'm sure your analysis is true as far as wave shapes and whatnot, but I'm happy to dwell in my blissful state of analog audio ignorance. If it feels good.....it is good, and when its over, its gone!
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
wiggle
Joined:
01 Jun 2001
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: 05/02/2009 at 1:17 PM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
#0 has a solid neck all the way to the bridge.
I think for this prototype, Travis pursued the ultimate in sound, and not portability ΓΆ‚¬" it is the ideal recording bass.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
rlrlrl
Joined:
24 Dec 2007
Posts: 260
|
| Posted: 05/02/2009 at 1:54 PM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
Sound is a very abstract thing. I own two Bean guitars, a thick body Standard and a thin body Artist. The Standard definitely sounds bigger, but I'm not sure if it sounds better. I sometimes find it hard to control. I also play better on the lighter instrument, because it's simply easier to get my fingers to manipulate it the way I want.... which is a different and relevant part of the story too. hmmm!
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kevin
Joined:
16 Mar 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: 05/03/2009 at 11:12 PM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
I think it must be said that the evolution of the TB2000 and Beans in general is missing a very small although important pc of the story.
They were obviously going to a front loaded design or at least tried it at the end. Theres the TB500(4-6) basses as well as the front loading TB2000(6+) and the strange front loading TB1000 body that just sold on ebay.
Theres the one completion 500 but to my knowledge the 2000s were not completed. Rather it be the idea sucked or they just went under without finishing the design, it is in fact part of the story. So you have the solid prototype, thick bodied, thin boddies, front loading, Rear pan design TB2000s. Thus far I prefer the rear pan design hands down.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Disclosure: Any links to eBay or Amazon.com are affiliate links. Affiliate links may provide commission payments to the site based on purchases.
|
|
|
|
wiggle
Joined:
01 Jun 2001
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: 05/03/2009 at 11:19 PM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
rear pan design
Are you talking about the guitars from the rerelease in 1997?
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kevin
Joined:
16 Mar 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: 05/03/2009 at 11:24 PM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
Yes, but according to Hank, that basic design was proofed out and at least 1 was made in the 70s. The 97 version was a bit different, being made of 1 pc of aluminum.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
wiggle
Joined:
01 Jun 2001
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: 05/04/2009 at 1:47 AM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
Didn't know about the 70s version!
Does anyone know where it went? Do any photos exist?
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
seawolfofsaturn
Joined:
01 Jun 2001
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: 05/04/2009 at 6:40 AM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
One interesting note regarding the front loading guitars and basses, the body that recently sold on Ebay was an early version body style TB 1000S, whereas the 2000 and 500 model basses appear to have been near the end of the company. I'm wondering if this was an idea that was tried early on and revisited later with the basses.
It was a great concept, to move what you saw on the back of a TB to the front. Neck through designs were becoming very popular in the 1970's, and many builders were using lighter woods visible from the front to emphasize this feature.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
admin
Joined:
01 Jun 2001
Posts: 1266
|
| Posted: 05/04/2009 at 7:37 AM Post subject: RE:TB2000 specs |
link
|
|
@wiggle
Here is a link talking about a very early prototype body that mentions 'pan' on the wood:
http://www.travisbeanguit.....fuseaction/forum.view.htm
I also talk about a conversation I had with a employee at the shop there about working on a pan guitar. These were very early concepts that Travis held on to when he made his reissues. The technology was not available back in the day.
Thanks!
hank/admin
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
